Steam for Linux

Hi, I am planing to upgrade my PC from Intel Core 2 Duo (built in 2006) to an AMD . I am kinda noob when it comes to hardware. So, I am looking for your advice on weather I should buy the following Processor and Motherboard or something different. I don't want to spend much, following is in my mind:

I totally agree with buying an Nvidia GFX for Linux. My recommendation would be, if you have the money, a GTX 760(I bought one from Gigabyte). If you don't, get a GTX 660. You could also wait 1-2 months for the price to drop on the GTX 760.

The CPU doesn't matter as all games are console ports and run fine even on an ancient dual-core CPU. This is especially true for linux as we don't even have the exceptions. There is literally no CPU-intensive game on linux yet.

So you can buy AMD, it's much cheaper and enough for anything.

GPU: People suggest nvidia. I don't have such a card to compare, so I don't know if what they claim is true. Maybe it's better to listen, though don't forget that nvidia is evil. :) Only spend money for them if you're prepared to spend the rest of your life in hell in exchange for better linux performance.

If you use windows as well, especially if you use windows as a primary OS, buy an AMD video card. It will be outdated long before linux gaming becomes something serious. And then probably AMD drivers will be better as well.

It's definitely better to use Intel CPU+Nvidia GPU instead of something from AMD. The single core performance is very bad with AMD CPUs, even the cheap Pentium ones beat the "highend" FX CPUs. Games often use only 1-2 cores, therefore AMD is not a wise choice. i5/i7 is the way to go, with a K variant you could even OC. AMD GFX is so stupid, that you can not even play Source engine games without changeing some values ingame and sometimes the drivers have got so extreme memory consumption that the whole system locks up (like 13.8 beta 1 with L4D2).

I have quite a large collection and the only CPU intensive game I own is World Of Warcraft. I can tell you it runs very smoothly under Wine on an AMD FX 6300. Paying an extra 30% for an Intel i5 processor is going to get you 2-3 extra frames maximum and won't be as good as an 8 core AMD FX processor for day to day multitasking.

Remember when buying your kit not to skimp on your power supply. You don't need some gold-plated monstrosity that costs as much as the rest of your components combined but you should definitely get one from a reputable supplier. Preferably you want at least a 450 watt PSU with '80 Plus' certification.

It's definitely better to use Intel CPU+Nvidia GPU instead of something from AMD. The single core performance is very bad with AMD CPUs, even the cheap Pentium ones beat the "highend" FX CPUs. Games often use only 1-2 cores, therefore AMD is not a wise choice. i5/i7 is the way to go, with a K variant you could even OC. AMD GFX is so stupid, that you can not even play Source engine games without changeing some values ingame and sometimes the drivers have got so extreme memory consumption that the whole system locks up (like 13.8 beta 1 with L4D2).

When Nvidia's drivers take a dump you are often pretty boned. I'm currently trying to get X un broken, since even getting it to boot in the VESA driver long enough to uninstall the driver it gutted X to the point that I can't even get VESA to work on any of the 3 GPUs I have laying around, it's not a hardware problem since they all work fine on the same box when running from a live CD.

I own an HD6870, and I have had mostly stellar performance with Steam games. But a couple games like Serious Sam 3, and even Gone Home run like absolute garbage. Valve games run at a rock solid 60FPS, and so does Amnesia.

I own an HD6870, and I have had mostly stellar performance with Steam games. But a couple games like Serious Sam 3, and even Gone Home run like absolute garbage. Valve games run at a rock solid 60FPS, and so does Amnesia.

The bad performance in SS3 is actually bad coding from the developers. Just install the windows version under windows, switch it to opengl mode, and you'll see the very same ugly performance loss. However, it's not that bad. It's completely playable on my 6850 at high/high/high settings, nowdays maybe even at ultra/ultra/ultra. Fps is less than under directx but still high enough. This is 1080p of course. Are you using a higher resolution?

The bad performance in SS3 is actually bad coding from the developers. Just install the windows version under windows, switch it to opengl mode, and you'll see the very same ugly performance loss.

Are you talking about guys who are hacking OpenGL for over decade (SS1 was the most optimized OpenGL game in 2001)? The reason (AFAIK) is different. Shaders. Shader compiler. Direct3D HLSL shaders are precompiled to bytecode via FXC tool. GLSL (OpenGL) shaders cannot be precompiled, so a compiler (in drivers) optimizations cannot be so strong. Check other shader demanding apps in DX11 and OpenGL modes eg. Unigine Heaven 4.0 or Valley 1.0.

Source games are different, they use some weird HLSL bytecode to asm-like GLSL shader converter.

I own an HD6870, and I have had mostly stellar performance with Steam games. But a couple games like Serious Sam 3, and even Gone Home run like absolute garbage. Valve games run at a rock solid 60FPS, and so does Amnesia.

The bad performance in SS3 is actually bad coding from the developers. Just install the windows version under windows, switch it to opengl mode, and you'll see the very same ugly performance loss. However, it's not that bad. It's completely playable on my 6850 at high/high/high settings, nowdays maybe even at ultra/ultra/ultra. Fps is less than under directx but still high enough. This is 1080p of course. Are you using a higher resolution?

Currently running an 8-core AMD-FX cpu with nvidia graphics, and everything works very well.You don't need an Intel CPU for excellent performance in Linux. You can get a decent deal on an AMD FX-6300 or FX-8320, and then spend the savings on better video card and better CPU cooling.